`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 3, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TRENTON A. WARD, GREGG I.
`ANDERSON, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue this Order in each case using a joint
`caption. Unless otherwise authorized, the parties are not permitted to use a
`joint caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On November 1, 2016, Judges Easthom, Ward, Anderson, and
`Weinschenk held a telephone conference call with counsel for D-Link
`Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and counsel for Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”). A court reporter was present on the conference call. This Order
`summarizes statements made during the conference call. A more complete
`record may be found in the court reporter’s transcript, which is to be filed by
`Patent Owner as an exhibit.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Petitioner requested authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response. Petitioner explained that, in the Preliminary
`Response, Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to identify all of the
`real parties-in-interest. According to Petitioner, that portion of the
`Preliminary Response contains factual and legal errors that Petitioner could
`not have anticipated at the time the Petition was filed. Petitioner indicated
`that its reply, if authorized, would address those errors. Petitioner also
`indicated that it plans to submit additional evidence with the reply, including
`a declaration previously filed with a district court. Petitioner, however, did
`not know whether that declarant could be made available for a deposition.
`Patent Owner responded that Petitioner had not made a showing of good
`cause, as required to warrant a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Patent
`Owner pointed out that the portion of the Preliminary Response that
`addresses the real party-in-interest issue only relies on information that was
`known to Petitioner at the time the Petition was filed.
`After considering the respective positions of the parties, we find that
`good cause exists to grant Petitioner’s request to file a limited reply to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Specifically, to the
`extent the Preliminary Response contains alleged factual inaccuracies
`relating to the real party-in-interest issue, Petitioner could not have been
`expected to anticipate and address those alleged inaccuracies in the Petition.
`Petitioner, therefore, is authorized to file a 3-page reply by November 11,
`2016. The scope of the reply is limited to addressing any alleged factual
`inaccuracies in the portion of the Preliminary Response that relates to the
`real party-in-interest issue. Petitioner may cite to evidence already of record
`in this case, but Petitioner may not submit any new evidence or testimony
`with the reply.
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may file a 3-page reply by
`November 11, 2016, in accordance with the instructions above; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no surreply is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Victoria Hao
`Martha Hopkins
`LAW OFFICES OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin S. Cohen
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`
`Richard W. Hoffman
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`
`4